Recommend an Op-Ed piece
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2018, 11:21 PM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
New Dept of Justice Guidelines Will Stymie Whistleblowers

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DoJ) quietly floated a new policy that will stymie whistleblowers.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal in U.S. Looks Toward Gatekeeper’s Role on Whistleblower Claims:

The Justice Department urged its lawyers to weed out meritless cases from the hundreds of suits brought on its behalf under an anti-fraud law called the False Claims Act.

Justice Department attorneys should consider using a provision in the False Claims Act that lets the department ask a judge to dismiss claims, even if the whistleblower who brought the case wants to go ahead, according to an internal memo dated Jan. 10 from Michael D. Granston, director of the commercial litigation branch of the Civil Division.

“This is good both for the government and it’s good for private industry,” said Mitch Ettinger, a white-collar defense lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.


Unfortunately, the new policy is neither good for whistleblowers, nor ultimately, the taxpayers who ultimately pay when the US government is defrauded.

Quote:History of US Whistleblower Recovery: False Claims Act Dates to Civil War

To understand why, a bit of history is in order, which I discussed at length in an earlier post, SEC Takes Victory Lap for Pathetic Performance of Whistleblower Program:

Incentives for private parties to spill the beans are a hallowed component of the US legal system, dating back to the Civil War-era False Claims Act (FCA) and extended by Congress in 1986. This statute includes “qui tam” provisions permitting individuals to sue on behalf of the government– and to receive a bounty if they prevail. The phrase qui tam is an abbreviation for the Latin “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur”, which means “[he] who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself.”

No less than (irony alert) noted anti-business jurist Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v United States ex rel Stevens, recognized that similar provisions date back to 1331 in England. Scalia also observed that numerous informer statutes were in place allowing such suits around the same time as the Constitution was adopted. These statutes authorized recovery of as much as half the fine, goods, or penalty, as appropriate, for failing to file a census return, or for illegal harbouring of runaway seamen, or unlicensed trading with Indian tribes, or for various other criminal, customs, bribery, or conflicts of interest violations (see footnotes 5 and 6 of the opinion linked to above).


Now, why does it matter that the DoJ can “weed out meritless cases from the hundreds of suits brought on its behalf” under the False Claims Act?

Well, as I wrote in my earlier post cited above:

As one of my cronies who practices in the qui tam area observes, he often floats arguments that various federal agencies consider to be unappealing on their face and will not pursue (perhaps for political reasons, e.g. the Air Force does not like suing Lockheed). But clever lawyering that ends up before the right judge can sometimes result in the success of some of these arguments, and eventually yield substantial recoveries– for both the government and the whistleblower– as well as have a deterrent effect.

A very effective cadre of privateer lawyers has evolved to bring qui tam cases, and these privateer lawyers are getting very adept at doing what privateers do. Some of this work is summarised at the website of Taxpayers Against Fraud, a bar association for lawyers who specialize in such cases. And in the process, they are sometimes successful at taking on the bespoke suit brigade. They also expand the resources that can be devoted to such cases. IIRC, the Department of Justice (DoJ) in DC has 60 lawyers who take on FCA cases, as compared to several hundred members of the private bar who bring these cases (and sometimes, both DoJ and private attorneys work in tandem). Private lawyers typically get contingency fees of up to one-third of any amounts that they recover on behalf of their clients; the FCA also allows fee shifting to the whistleblower meaning that if these cases go to trial and the whistleblower wins, the losing side pays the whistleblower’s legal fees.


So, it’s not uncommon for the DoJ to decide for whatever reasons of its own– politics, resource allocation– that it doesn’t want to purse a line of argument (and potential recovery). Up ’til now, qui tam attorneys could march ahead, despite DoJ hostility.

Now, under the new policy, DoJ attorneys are encouraged to seek to dismiss meritless claims– and that ultimately leaves the DoJ with much greater control over which whistleblower claims proceed– and which don’t. And if you believe that the DoJ will only confine itself to thwarting “meritless” suits, well, I have a bridge that I’d like to sell you.

Bogus Argument: Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Make Too Many Meritless Claims

Plaintiffs’ attorneys typically get a bad rap from members of the white shoe bar. Why? Well, because they’re effective in bringing cases against corporations.

According to the WSJ:

Jack Dodds, an FCA defense lawyer with Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, said the memo could make plaintiffs’ lawyers more cautious about what cases they handle, given the possibility that the Justice Department may now seek to dismiss them.

This is a bogus argument, however. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are typically cautions about the cases they take on, since these are usually compensated on a contingency fee basis– meaning the lawyer makes no money unless s/he wins a case (or secures a settlement). Since the lawyer is footing the upfront costs of pursuing a claim, that lawyer typically doesn’t take on claims unless the claims have some merit– otherwise, the lawyer is working for free, with no hope even of recouping costs or receiving payday.

As I wrote in another post, Business Groups Aim to Strong-Arm CFPB on Arbitration:

Class actions get a bad press, partly due to the extensive efforts that have been made by business interests to tout the defects of the US legal system, especially laws, regulations, and procedures that allow consumers to recover for harms they have suffered. From the perspective of potential plaintiffs, class actions allow pooling of resources, making it economically viable to bring claims that individually may be too small to pursue. From the perspective of courts, class actions allow numerous similar claims to be combined and thus save court resources as claims are litigated together rather than separately. And from a systemic perspective, class actions allow private actors– entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ attorneys, incentivised by the large potential fees they can reap from contingent fee arrangements, to act as private attorneys general. In what can be called a regulation by litigation model, these lawsuits impose de facto constraints on dangerous, fraudulent, or predatory behaviour that in other national systems might be controlled by effective upfront regulation by the nation state (and at one time in the US, were addressed by some public regulators).

Gatekeeper Replaces Loose Symbiosis

Under the new False Claims Act policy, DoJ attorneys will serve as gatekeepers, rather than act in loose symbiosis with members of the qui tam bar. This policy shift will inevitably result in fewer qui tam cases being pursued. From the perspective of the public interest, that’s a bad outcome.

Neither the current DoJ under Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions nor the DoJ under former AGs Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch showed any particular appetite to ferret out and punish corporate crime– to say the least. At the same time, federal courts have become a more hostile place to bring class action and other claims against corporations– and this atmosphere will only worsen, as the Trump administration has efficiently filled many open judgeships with like-minded, business-friendly jurists (as I discussed most recently in, Trump Sets Records for Seating Federal Judges).

This seemingly small, technical change will actually further stymie legitimate avenues for punishment and deterrence of fraudulent corporate behavior. That’s just what we need at this time.

“Look at what they abandoned in their panic...they were afraid; ashamed. They chose to conceal it; to bury the roots of a Great Civilization. They turned their backs on what science had to offer them, and tried to shut the lid of the Pandora's Box they themselves had opened.”

Katsuhiro Otomo, (Akira, 1988)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 07:57 AM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
On the lighter side of life, a 45 year old’s 12 rules for living. I read them, they seem like good rules to me.

After 45 Birthdays, Here Are ’12 Rules for Life'

I particularly like #7
"Don’t just pay people compliments; give them living eulogies. Tell them exactly how great they are, in how many ways. Embarrass them. Here’s a funny thing I have learned by being just a little bit internet famous: it doesn’t matter how many times you hear them, the words “You are amazing, and here’s why” never get old. They do not go out of style. You will be wearing them to your 80th birthday party, along with a dazzling smile.”

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
01-02-2018, 08:19 AM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
(01-02-2018 07:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  On the lighter side of life, a 45 year old’s 12 rules for living. I read them, they seem like good rules to me.

After 45 Birthdays, Here Are ’12 Rules for Life'

I particularly like #7
"Don’t just pay people compliments; give them living eulogies. Tell them exactly how great they are, in how many ways. Embarrass them. Here’s a funny thing I have learned by being just a little bit internet famous: it doesn’t matter how many times you hear them, the words “You are amazing, and here’s why” never get old. They do not go out of style. You will be wearing them to your 80th birthday party, along with a dazzling smile.”

I find #10 to be good one: Don’t try to resolve fundamental conflicts with your spouse or roommates. There is no reason to care that person I live with prefer 3.2% milk to 0.5% one - if I'm not being forced to taste what I find crap then I can't see reason for reacting to person x preference with something other than shrug.

I can't though accept #11. Sure, I could be born in worse country, had worse family and life but not having it even worse is no reason at all to be grateful, especially considering that it wasn't through effort of others but by simple virtue of Poland being wealthier than Burkina Faso.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2018, 02:25 PM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
Let them pray for death. Belarusian war on drugs.

How the war on drugs was declared in Belarus – and what came out of it. In Belarus, from three to four thousand people, mostly youth under 30, are sentenced for "illicit drug trafficking" yearly. Political Critique tried to find out whether the authoritarian government is effective in its crusade against prohibited substances...

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2018, 08:34 PM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
What if we could REALLY Convince the Public That Climate Change is a Threat?

[Image: boilingfrog.gif]

Maybe one day some really gigantic-awful-horrible-monstrous-humungous climate related disaster will hit us. And that, at that moment, people will stop playing the boiling frog and will be forced to admit that climate change is real and we have to do something about that.

Unfortunately, plenty of gigantic-horrible-etc. disasters have already hit us, but the public doesn't seem to have taken notice. But never mind, we might be hit by the really big one. And, if it happens, do you think people will come to the scientists and tell them "we are so sorry, now we understand you were right all along"?

I have the impression that it will be rather something like what you see in the clip, below. It will be something like what the woman says, "God is going to destroy this Earth and there is nothing you silly scientists can do about that with all your scientific blah-blah."

And I have this terrible feeling that she may be right.




“Look at what they abandoned in their panic...they were afraid; ashamed. They chose to conceal it; to bury the roots of a Great Civilization. They turned their backs on what science had to offer them, and tried to shut the lid of the Pandora's Box they themselves had opened.”

Katsuhiro Otomo, (Akira, 1988)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaneda's post
08-02-2018, 08:01 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2018 08:05 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
This next Op Ed reminded me of Mark Twain’s letter to his sister:

How insignificant we are, with our pigmy little world!-- an atom glinting with uncounted myriads of other atom worlds in a broad shaft of light streaming from God's countenance--and yet prating complacently of our speck as the Great World, and regarding the other specks as pretty trifles made to steer our schooners by and inspire the reveries of "puppy" lovers. Did Christ live 33 years in each of the millions and millions of worlds that hold their majestic courses above our heads? Or was our small globe the favored one of all? Does one apple in a vast orchard think as much of itself as we do? or one leaf in the forest--or one grain of sand upon the sea shore? Do the pismires argue upon vexed questions of pismire theology--and do they climb a molehill and look abroad over the grand universe of an acre of ground and say "Great is God, who created all things for Us?"
- Letter to Olivia Landon (Clemens) 8 January 1870


Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the following is tl;dr, it is very entertaining and eye-opening on where we humans fit on the great span of geologic time. (That is to say we aren’t a blip yet). Enjoy a brief walk back in time. Smile


Opinion | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Rambling Through Time
By PETER BRANNEN
JAN. 27, 2018

There’s a seafloor in Central Park. It crops out from under fallen ginkgo leaves, in black hunks sparkling with muscovite. This familiar rock was laid down as deep-sea muck half a billion years ago in a strange ocean haunted by alien exoskeletons, and gelatinous things that pulsed and squirmed.

But you can’t find fossils in this Central Park seabed — they were all cooked to schist tens of millions of years later in titanic continental collisions that pushed snowcapped mountains into tropical New England skies. As you can imagine, this was all a very long time ago — but then again, you can’t imagine it.

This is the central insight of geology. The world is old beyond comprehension, and our story on it is short. The conceit of the Anthropocene, the supposed new epoch we’re living in, is that humanity can already make claims to its geological legacy. But if we’re to endure as a civilization, or even as a species, for anything more than what might amount to a thin layer of odd rock in some windswept canyon of the far future, some humility is in order about our, thus far, infinitesimal part in the history of the planet.

Astronomy gets much of the credit for decentralizing the role of humans in the story of the cosmos, but just as Edwin Hubble placed our island universe in deep space, the geologist James Hutton placed us in deep time, gawking in awe in 1788 at the chasms of history that confronted him in the rocks at Siccar Point on the east coast of Scotland.

To grasp the extent of this abyss, the present-day geologist Robert Hazen proposes going for a walk, with each step representing a century back in time. Let’s walk 500 million years back, roughly to the strange age of the Central Park seafloor. With a nod to the space folks, we’ll start out at the American Museum of Natural History’s Hayden Planetarium on the Upper West Side and head west. We can’t even get to the sidewalk before all of recorded history — all of the empires, the holy books, agriculture, the architecture, all of it — is behind us.

But since it is geological time, not human history that we’re after, we keep walking down city streets in a world now populated by woolly mammoths and giant ground sloths. We walk past Broadway to Riverside Park, eventually hitting the Hudson River.

We’ve already put more than a thousand centuries behind us, but we’ve got a long way to go. So we march up the West Side Highway and cross the George Washington Bridge to New Jersey. Despite our sore feet, and having covered untold millenniums over several miles, we’re stupefied to learn that we’ve scarcely gone back a million years — an all but insignificant amount to geologists. In fact, we haven’t even emerged from the pulsating ice age that has waxed and waned for the past 2.6 million years.

The scale of the task dimly dawning on us, we push on, trudging along the rumble strip of Interstate 80 in New Jersey, battered by gusts of passing tractor-trailers. After walking for more than 24 hours we make it clear across the state, stumbling into Pennsylvania. Morale now collapsing, we’re further gutted to learn that walking as the crow flies 300 miles across the Keystone State won’t even bring us back to the age of dinosaurs.

That august period begins in Ohio and, though all of human civilization lasted only those first few dozen footsteps out of the museum, the age of dinosaurs will continue through the rest of the state. Then Indiana. Then Illinois. Then Iowa. It’s not until we reach the middle of the Triassic somewhere in Nebraska (and some 235 million years ago) that the first humble dinosaurs appear. But we’re still nowhere near that ancient sea world entombed in the Manhattan schist.

So we keep going, across prairies, over the Rocky Mountains, through Utah’s Martian wastes, then Nevada’s bleak Basin and Range, as untold millions of years slip past. Finally, scrambling over the Sierras and across the San Joaquin Valley to San Francisco, we arrive at the edge of the continent, more than 100 miles, and tens of millions of years, short of the Cambrian world revealed in Central Park. Having reached the Pacific Ocean, we have covered 10 percent of earth’s history.

It has been cynically observed by some politicians that over this vast scope of time, “Earth’s climate is always changing.” Indeed, in our transcontinental walk through earth history, it’s true. The planet’s climate in those first few miles of our walk, through the freeze-thaw seesaw of the recent ice ages, is, in fact, far different from the carbon-dioxide infused wasteland inferno of the early Triassic, more than a thousand miles later. Over the grand sweep of earth history our planet has been many different worlds — a snowball earth colonized by sponges, a supercontinental broiler ruled by crocodile kin.

But during the brief window of the past few thousand years in which all of civilization has emerged — those first few steps in our journey — we’ve enjoyed an almost miraculously equable interglacial climate, the most stable of the past several hundred thousand years. It’s these pleasant few footsteps that allowed complex societies to blossom. But in the next few footsteps, we’re projected to return to climates last seen hundreds, if not thousands of miles in our past.

In this century alone, a time scale so laughably brief as to effectively not exist to geologists, we could send the planet back to a climate system not seen for many millions of years. One study recently estimated that humanity has the capacity in the next few centuries to make the planet warmer than it has been in at least 420 million years.

The story of life on earth so far isn’t one of a tidy march of progress, culminating in humanity’s “end of history.” Other alien worlds have claimed this planet for unimaginably longer spans, relinquishing their place only under the duress of mind-bending episodes of chaos, like asteroid hits and large-scale volcanic activity.

And contrary to some accounts of our current moment, we’re not even the first, or only, organism to threaten the planet with mass extinction. At the end of the Ediacaran period, 540 million years ago, burrowing animals and filter feeders might have wiped out vast swathes of exotic life clinging to the seafloor. Almost 200 million years later at the end of the Devonian period, the evolution of trees might have driven such convulsions in climate and ocean chemistry that 97 percent of the world’s vertebrates died.

In the next few decades we will decide whether humanity’s legacy will be a sliver of clay in the limestone strata — a geological embarrassment accessible only in remote outcrops to eagle-eyed geologists of the far future — or an enduring new epoch like the reign of dinosaurs. But even if it’s the former, and we collapse almost as soon, in geologic time, as we got started, the record in the rocks of the extinctions we caused will remain, as eternal as the schist in Central Park.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
10-02-2018, 02:52 AM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
Trump is not going to implode


Łukasz Pawłowski: Over a year ago, before Donald Trump was elected we spoke about the rise of illiberal democracy even in countries with strong democratic traditions, like the United States. What has changed over the first year of Trump’s presidency? Is illiberal democracy still on the rise, or has it been compromised by what has happened over the past 12 months?

Fareed Zakaria: The struggle between the forces of illiberal and liberal democracy is still going on. There are three sets of things that encompass the Trump phenomenon. One is the kind of circus we observe at the White House – his crazy statements and emotional reactions to daily events. The second is policies themselves which are a strange mixture of populism and reactionism. The third element, which I regard as the most consequential, is his criticism of institutions, laws, and practices of liberal democracy. By that, I mean his consistent attacks on the press, independent judges, FBI, government bureaucracy, etc. Very few presidents have ever done that before. Now we are going to see how strong these institutions are and whether they can withstand these assaults. That seems to me to be the big struggle and there are versions of it taking place all around the world, including Poland...

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
14-02-2018, 12:32 AM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2018 01:04 AM by Kaneda.)
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
The Deadly Rule of the Oligarchs
Chris Hedges
Feb 11, 2018 | TD originals

[Image: Fish-Hedges-Tongue-and-Groove-11feb2018-850x832.jpg]Mr. Fish / Truthdig

"Oligarchic rule, as Aristotle pointed out, is a deviant form of government. Oligarchs care nothing for competency, intelligence, honesty, rationality, self-sacrifice or the common good. They pervert, deform and dismantle systems of power to serve their immediate interests, squandering the future for short-term personal gain. “The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments that rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one, of the few or of the many, are perversions,” Aristotle wrote. The classicist Peter L.P. Simpson calls these perversions the “sophistry of oligarchs,” meaning that once oligarchs take power, rational, prudent and thoughtful responses to social, economic and political problems are ignored to feed insatiable greed. The late stage of every civilization is characterized by the sophistry of oligarchs, who ravage the decaying carcass of the state.

These deviant forms of government are defined by common characteristics, most of which Aristotle understood. Oligarchs use power and ruling structures solely for personal advancement.

Oligarchs, though they speak of deconstructing the administrative state, actually increase deficits and the size and power of law enforcement and the military to protect their global business interests and ensure domestic social control. The parts of the state that serve the common good wither in the name of deregulation and austerity. The parts that promote the oligarchs’ power expand in the name of national security, economic growth and law and order.

For example, the oligarchs educate their children in private schools and buy them admissions into elite universities (this is how a mediocre student like Jared Kushner went to Harvard and Donald Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania), so they see no need to fund good public education for the wider population. Oligarchs can pay teams of high-priced lawyers to bail them and their families out of legal trouble. There is no need, in their eyes, to provide funds for legal representation for the poor. When oligarchs do not fly on private jets, they fly in first class, so they permit airlines to fleece and abuse “economy” passengers. They do not use subways, buses or trains, and they slash funds for the maintenance and improvement of these services. Oligarchs have private clinics and private doctors, so they do not want to pay for public health or Medicare. Oligarchs detest the press, which when it works shines a light on their corruption and mendacity, so they buy up and control systems of information and push their critics to the margins of society, something they will accelerate with the abolition of net neutrality.

Oligarchs do not vacation on public beaches or in public parks. They own their own land and estates, where we are not allowed. They see no reason to maintain or fund public parks or protect public land. They hand such land over to other oligarchs to exploit for profit. Oligarchs cynically view laws as mechanisms to legalize their fraud and plunder. They use their lobbyists in the legislative branch of government to author bills that increase and protect their wealth, through the avoidance of taxes and other means. Oligarchs do not allow free and fair elections. They use gerrymandering and campaign contributions to make sure other oligarchs are elected over and over to office. Many run unopposed."

More at https://www.truthdig.com/articles/deadly...oligarchs/

“Look at what they abandoned in their panic...they were afraid; ashamed. They chose to conceal it; to bury the roots of a Great Civilization. They turned their backs on what science had to offer them, and tried to shut the lid of the Pandora's Box they themselves had opened.”

Katsuhiro Otomo, (Akira, 1988)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2018, 06:08 AM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
Europe’s populists are waltzing into the mainstream

ON AN icy January morning, twinkly lights and the glow from chic cafés illuminate Hässleholm’s tidy streets. The employment office opens its doors to a queue of one. Posters in shop windows invite locals to coffee mornings with immigrants asking: “What will you do to make Sweden more open?” At first glance, this small town fulfils every stereotype about the country: prosperous, comfortable, liberal. But last year it became the centre of a political storm.

Mainstream Swedish politicians have refused to co-operate in any way with the Sweden Democrats (SD), a right-wing populist party with extremist roots, since it was formed in 1988. In 2015 Fredrik Reinfeldt, a former prime minister and then still leader of the centre-right Moderates, described the SD’s leadership as “racists and the stiffly xenophobic”. But a year ago the Moderates used SD support to oust Hässleholm’s centre-left local government and elect Patrik Jönsson, the SD’s regional leader, vice-chair of the new council. In November the council adopted an SD budget that would cut spending on education and social care for immigrants and build a new swimming pool for locals instead. “We just want to shut Hässleholm’s doors,” announced Mr Jönsson. Per Ohlsson, a columnist on Sydsvenskan, the local newspaper, is alarmed: “I get a growing feeling that liberal democracy is something we have taken for granted for too long.” ...

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2018, 08:53 PM
RE: Recommend an Op-Ed piece
“Privilege” Mostly Isn’t, It Is What Everyone Should Have

Ian Welsh
FEBRUARY 8, 2018

This is hilarious:

Quote:"Rather than increasing the pay of female staff the BBC has decided to slash the salaries of the top male earners, in a belated attempt to tackle the broadcaster’s gender pay gap crisis…

…It is understood that under new plans being rolled out to fight off the gender pay row the that has recently dogged the broadcaster, the BBC’s male stars will see their six-figure salaries slashed by up to 30 percent."

There are a few problems with the use of the word privilege. The main one is that much of what is called “privilege” isn’t, it’s what everyone should have. In the US it is often noted that a black or brown person is far more likely to be killed than a white: the police go far out of their way not to kill whites in comparison.

But that doesn’t mean that the police should treat everyone like they do African-Americans, say, it means they should treat everyone like they do whites.

As for the pay gap, the idea is that everyone should earn what white males do for the same work, not that white males should earn less. (Well, I don’t actually care how much rich white male presenters make, but in the general sense.)

Most of what white males have is what everyone should have because white males are generally treated better, even well, and that’s how we should treat everyone.

It isn’t a privilege to not be shot out of hand by cops, or to earn the same (good) pay for the same work, it’s decent and fair.

“Look at what they abandoned in their panic...they were afraid; ashamed. They chose to conceal it; to bury the roots of a Great Civilization. They turned their backs on what science had to offer them, and tried to shut the lid of the Pandora's Box they themselves had opened.”

Katsuhiro Otomo, (Akira, 1988)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: